Talk:Algiers expedition (1541)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Algiers expedition (1541). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090818015845/http://www.neopodia.mobi/20090519-histoire-renaissance-alliance-impie-francois-1er-ier-ottoman-soliman-suleyman-charles-quint-forces-en-presence to http://www.neopodia.mobi/20090519-histoire-renaissance-alliance-impie-francois-1er-ier-ottoman-soliman-suleyman-charles-quint-forces-en-presence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I launch a Request for comment about the Algiers regency's flag in 1541. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

According to others academic sources, the flag was different:

1. Alexandre Rang, Histoire d'Aroudj et de Khaïr-ed-din. « le déploiement d'un grand drapeau national formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte et jaune, et orné de croissant d'argent » [1]
2. Nadir Assari, Alger: des origines à la régence turque. «  A l'époque turque, le drapeau d'Alger était formé de trois bandes de soie rouge, verte et jaune.  » [2]
3. Marius Bernard, L'Algérie qui s'en va. « Rien n'y manque, pas même la longue hampe où flotta si longtemps l'insolent drapeau de la régence avec ses trois bandes horizontales, jaune en bas, rouge en haut, vert au milieu. » [3]
4. Sander Rang,Ferdinand Denis,Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis, Fondation de la régence d'Alger: histoire des Barberousse, « ; c'était du haut de ses vastes terrasses sur lesquelles flottait l'étendard rouge, jaune et vert ». [4]
5. Mouloud Gaïd : L'Algerie sous les Turcs, p.58 : « Le grand drapeau d'Alger, formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte, jaune, se déploya majestueusement au-dessus de la porte »"

--Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

*Support(Summoned by bot)I am fine with the flag being added to the infobox. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

See also my tp. I have decided that having no image and a footnote, as described by Panam2014 below, is better. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Actual flag of the US.

Flag of the US betwen 1777 and 1795

• I'm also fine with the flag being added to the infobox. The majority of the sources cited above must be discarded for two reasons:
  • the flag they describe is not the one used in 1541, but the one used later. It's like trying to impose the actual US flag for some thing that happened between 1777 and 1795.
  • According to WP:AGE MATTERS, "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt".

Moreover, Mouloud Gaïd has based his work on Algiers expedition on Galibert's work (first published in 1844), so WP:AGE MATTERS applies too in this case. --Ms10vc (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell:

1. Alexandre Rang, Histoire d'Aroudj et de Khaïr-ed-din: Definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (published in 1837) ==> [5]
2. Nadir Assari: does not concern the flag used in 1541
3. Marius Bernard, L'Algérie qui s'en va: Definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (published in 1887) ==> [6]
4. Sander Rang, Ferdinand Denis, Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis, Fondation de la régence d'Alger: histoire des Barberousse: Definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (published in 1837) ==> [7]
5. Mouloud Gaïd, L'Algerie sous les Turcs, p.58: Uses as a primary reference Léon Galibert's L'Algérie: ancienne et moderne, which is definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (first published in 1844) ==> [8]

--Ms10vc (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The facts are clear: the sources I have proposed are still considered secondary, they can not be reclassified into tertiary. So from this moment on, it is not possible to pretend that from the moment when there are more recent sources, they are more reliable. Thus, if an historian publishes an alternative theory after another historian, one can not say that one or the other is more right. On the other hand, because we have 10 sources and half of them are opposed, we can not defend one view rather than the other. So just do not put any flag and add a "footnote" to the article of the flags of Algeria to explain. @Jean-Jacques Georges and Alaspada: --Panam2014 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The rule est cristal clear. Once again, according to WP:AGE MATTERS, "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt". So please stick to rule. Your personal opinion is charming but we are not interested with personal opinions. This source ==> "Houari Touati, Aux origines du drapeau algérien : une histoire symbolique, Editions Zaytūn, 2014, p. 38" is a recent one, centered on the subject and written by an academic specialist. Best regards. --Ms10vc (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Can I transfer you the relevant pages of the book of Houari Touati? You can read this article about it ==> [9]. Touati is one of the best specialists of the Maghrebian Middle Age ==> [10]. --Ms10vc (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

So I ask Ms10vc to stop and stop pretending that this is only my opinion. For the rest, my two sources are recent and it does not matter if Touati is newer than them from the moment they did not become tertiary sources and that two sources (and not one) contradict Touati.

@L3X1: this book has been writed on 2007. And Mouloud Gaïd, the author L'Algerie sous les Turcs died on 2000. So there is no evidence as to how was the flag and Gaid is also a great historian. Touati's opinion does not have the monopoly of historical truth. And for Touati, he used a traduction of Al Ghazavat. Moreover, even with a historian's description, it is not possible to draw a flag with the exact colors, proportions and orientations of the patterns orientation. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The facts are very clear: there is no source giving the flag for the regency of Algiers in 1541, just like the book by Houari Touati which speaks only of the modern period. Best regards --- Alaspada (discuter) 12:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• I translated (mon Francais est petit) the page by Houari Touati. I have a question regarding the sentence: the vexillary symbol of their collective identity has changed configuration repeatedly to take four, five, six different forms in only the first half of the twentieth century. Doesn't this prove that we don't know which exact flag to use? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  Hello. In any case Ithink that your french is better than my english. The sentence is about the twentieth century, but our subject is the flag of the Algiers Regency in 1541. Touati has provided plenty of evidences about the flag. I have copied them below from another discussion in another wiki:

1. Ill. 29 – De stadt van Aelgier, 1541
2. Ill. 30 – La flotte de Khayr al-Din dans le port de Toulon, vers 1543
3. Ill. 31 – Portrait de Kayr Al-Dîn Pascha, vers 1580
4. Ill. 32 – Portulan (+ compléments), 1646
5. Ill. 34 — La cité, le port et le môle d'Alger, vers 1690

Please refer to this sentence in page 38: "Différentes gravures parmi les plus anciennes, comme celles qui restituent le siège d'Alger de 1541, attestent que l'emblème d'Alger est le rouge orné du croissant relevé par les Ghazaouat", which translates to : "Different engravings among the oldest ones, such as those restoring the siege of Algiers of 1541, attest that the emblem of Algiers is the red decorated with the crescent as noted by the Ghazaouat". Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1 and Alaspada:So that's right. Touati is based on a very ancient source, Al Ghazavat, which is now a tertiary source. In view of this, it is not possible to disqualify the other two recent sources on the pretext that they cite ancient sources. Or they are all disqualified. For the rest, only the first engraving is 1541. The others represent the flag at another time. In short always no source that allows to decide. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

In the sources given:

1. Ill. 29 – De stadt van Aelgier, 1541
2. Ill. 30 – La flotte de Khayr al-Din dans le port de Toulon, vers 1543
3. Ill. 31 – Portrait de Kayr Al-Dîn Pascha, vers 1580
4. Ill. 32 – Portulan (+ compléments), 1646
5. Ill. 34 — La cité, le port et le môle d'Alger, vers 1690

it is the flag or the banner of the Ottoman Empire, not that of the Regency of Algiers or speaks of a period that does not concern us (1646 or 1690).

Best regards --- Alaspada (discuter) 20:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualtie numbers

Hello @185.123.53.37

it seems that you have issue with number of casualties let me say this:

1) I did not make up those number, these number are according to the sources given in the reference section, and they are linked as well you can go to these links and check them, this page was created by (Per Honor et Gloria) and they had the same exact numbers as it can be seen here [11], but for some time they have been changed due to unknown reason, I only corrected them, check the history of editing.

2) how are these sources unreliable, on what basis? why do you think that?, give a clear explanation.

3) you are citing numbers that has no sources at all, you probably took these numbers from Spanish Wikipedia and it has no citation at all, these number are not mentioned in the Spanish article itself, instead it says Las pérdidas fueron muchas, pero no se contabilizaron, ni al parecer hubo voluntad de hacerlo, which says The losses were many, but they were not accounted for, and apparently there was no will to do so.

عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Change "Algerian victory" to "Ottoman-Algerian victory" in infobox

Hello, I propose this change because the article makes it clear that there was Ottoman involvement. For example, the source used to cite the Algerian victory states (Phillip C. Naylor, 2006. Historical Dictionary of Algeria. Scarecrow Press. p. 157);

"CHARLES V (1500-1558). Habsburg emperor (r. 1519-1556). Charles V intervened in Tunisia after Khayr al-Din removed the Hafsids from power in 1534. In turn, Charles expelled the Ottomans in 1535. He continued to challenge Ottoman control of the Mediterranean by targeting Algiers. After obtaining French neutrality, Charles ordered Admiral Andrea Doria to attack in 1541. With an armada of over 500 ships (galleys and transports) carrying approximately 37,500 soldiers and sailors, the assault force landed at the mouth of the Harrach River. The invaders secured the heights over the city. Nevertheless, stormy weather disorganized the invasion. Ottoman and allied Algerian counterattacks successively drove off the Habsburg forces. The Knights of Malta distinguished themselves covering the retreat. Another storm wracked the invasion fleet destroying 140 ships. As the defeated Habsburgs embarked, the Ottoman and Algerian forces celebrated a great victory that heightened the Regency's prestige given this triumph over Christian Europe's most powerful ruler."

What are your thoughts? عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) Pinged you specifically because you seem to be interested in this article. Thanks to everyone who participates in the discussion. Lenovya (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1) The expedition was specifically against the Regency of Algiers. 2) All those who lived in the Regency of Algiers (regardless of their ethnic background) identified as Algerians, therefore, Algerian is correct.
  Since you cherry picked an editor to ping, I will ping some of those who have edited the article. @Elinruby, Terrum3, and Nourerrahmane: you thoughts on this will be highly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton 1) The expedition was against the Regency of Algiers, although semi-independent, part of the Ottoman Empire nonetheless. This argument is irrelevant though as I didn't propose to remove "Algerian" from the victory part

  2) What is your source for that? And why is that relevant? The Ottoman commanders at the battle were under the command of the Sultan, they weren't Algerians.

  I pinged that user specifically because I saw them having created a section on the article's talk page. I do not know anything about their background, only that they may be interested in the subject. They could go against my proposed change for all I know.

  You, however, have just violated a Wikipedia guideline (WP:VOTESTACKING) since you've engaged in "vote-stacking" and you want to turn the consensus to your favour by pinging multiple users whose opinions you know will favour yours. That is why even if the consensus goes in your favour, I'll make sure to further this proposal to other forms of dispute resolution. If it comes to that, I will also cite how you've just engaged in canvassing and vote-stacking to them. Lenovya (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Your repeated aspersions (here and on your talk page) have been duly noted. Please don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton There is no personal attack on you, I responded to your objections and also showed how you engaged in WP:VOTESTACKING. Like I said, if it comes to it, we'll let other forms of dispute resolutions decide on who is wrong here. Lenovya (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. 1) Algerian victory is enough. Being semi-independent makes all the reason why we should call it Algerian victory. We don't call an Aghlabid win "Abassid victory" or a Zirid win "Fatimid victory"... These are autonomous/independent states. Same with the Regency, which was first and foremost a state in its own right governed by Turks who identified themselves as Algerians. It's well sourced. (Please check the Regency of Algiers article).

2) One more reason to keep it is this sentence (The Ottoman commanders at the battle were under the command of the Sultan, they weren't Algerians.) Although the only commander here is Hasan Agha, this sentence proves that the user has no idea what the Regency of Algiers and its government are.

3) Eventhough Algiers was still following Ottoman foreign policy at this point, the Sultan was simply not involved in this nor his direct commanders. It was the Regent of Algiers. Adding "Ottoman" would make readers beleive otherwise. The aftermath of the battle concerns Algeria more than the Ottoman core. The Regency greatly expanded after this battle, and the city of Algiers acquired its nickname "The invincible".

4) It's already known that the article covers an event in the Ottoman period of Algeria, so it's useless to add "Ottoman" next to every mention of Algeria or Algiers, not to mention that the Regency was called Algiers (Al-Djazair), not Ottoman Algiers.

I hope this clears things out. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane Thank you for your response. I agree with most of what you said, but nevertheless there were Ottoman troops present at the expedition. This can be seen in the very source used to cite the Algerian victory in the article;

Phillip C. Naylor (5 September 2006). Historical Dictionary of Algeria. Scarecrow Press. p. 157;

"CHARLES V (1500-1558). Habsburg emperor (r. 1519-1556). Charles V intervened in Tunisia after Khayr al-Din removed the Hafsids from power in 1534. In turn, Charles expelled the Ottomans in 1535. He continued to challenge Ottoman control of the Mediterranean by targeting Algiers. After obtaining French neutrality, Charles ordered Admiral Andrea Doria to attack in 1541. With an armada of over 500 ships (galleys and transports) carrying approximately 37,500 soldiers and sailors, the assault force landed at the mouth of the Harrach River. The invaders secured the heights over the city. Nevertheless, stormy weather disorganized the invasion. Ottoman and allied Algerian counterattacks successively drove off the Habsburg forces. The Knights of Malta distinguished themselves covering the retreat. Another storm wracked the invasion fleet destroying 140 ships. As the defeated Habsburgs embarked, the Ottoman and Algerian forces celebrated a great victory that heightened the Regency's prestige given this triumph over Christian Europe's most powerful ruler." Lenovya (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You're quoting one source while ignoring everything that I and Nourerrahmane said about the so-called Ottomans of the Regency of Algiers (who self-identified as Algerians). M.Bitton (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton They are clearly separated into two separate forces ("Ottoman and Algerian forces"). Those who identified as Algerian are under the Algerian forces, anyways. The source mentions two separate forces, the Ottomans and then the forces of their vassals, the Algerians. Lenovya (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ottoman troops of the Regency are Algerian troops, the Janissaries, corsairs, cyborgs...they are Algerians. If you see the context here you would know he's speaking about native troops (Allied Algerian). In the regency context, being Algerian is being Turk or under Turkish rule of Algiers. If you have read enough sources you would have known that. Otherwise there were no more than 500 janissaires, which means there were no Ottoman help from abroad. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane They are separated into two forces by the source (Ottoman and Algerian). Those who identify as Algerian are already written as Algerian, while the Ottoman involvement is stressed separately. If there was no Ottoman involvement, the source wouldn't have mentioned the Ottoman troops separately and only mentioned Algerians if said Ottomans troops also identified as Algerian (clearly they didn't, suggesting they were not from the regency). Lenovya (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

So you suggest the regency had no janissaries ? ... There were not a single military force in Algiers, you have the janissaries of the Odjak, the Sipahis and the Zouaves, the latter being native troops. In addition to tribal troops provided by "Allied tribes" or "Allied Algerians" which were the ones mentionned in the source you quoted and it's confirmed by other sources that mentionned Algerian tribes hitting the rear of the retreating Spanish army. So it's one of the two: Either you claim the Ottomans in this case were not Algerians, which is false per sources, or the Regency had reinforcements, which is also false since no source speak of this. You can see why cherrypicking is bad. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane If the Ottoman forces in this expedition supposedly identified as Algerian, why doesn't the source group them under Algerian? But instead write their force as separate to the Algerians. Lenovya (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Because Ottoman and Algerian are often used interchangeably, yet when tribes are involved, "Algerian" is seperated from Ottoman affiliation per context, which in this case is regular Ottoman troops and tribal algerian forces, yet both are Regency's troops and both are Algerians politically speaking. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please check what the source says in p. 391. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I am extremely tied up in non-Wiki matters and will not be available for further comment but: I worked extensively on Regency of Algiers, including a very detailed source verification. I agree with M.Bitton and Nourerrahmane that calling the Regency of Algiers "Ottoman" is a vast over-simplification. I am currently involved in an Arbcom case, and medical issues have prevented me from giving that adequate time, so I am not available for further discussion of this point and won't be for at least a couple of months, but there really is no question, per my months-long review of the sourcing of that article, that they support the special status and essential autonomy of Algiers. I hope this comment is helpful; please do not ping me about this article again until I begin to active there again. I really cannot deal with any long discussions right now. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane That page is unavailable to me, what does it state? Lenovya (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. In my opinion, "Algerian victory" is more than enough since it refers to the Regency of Algiers against which the expedition was. It does not matter if it was semi-independant or not. Moreover, all the troops (janissaries, moors and others) were led by Hassan Pasha, khalifa and futur beylerbey of Algiers.

PS We could use something like "Regency of Algiers victory" instead of "Alg. vict." like in french wiki.

Thank you! Terrum3 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Terrum3 I guess we can come to a compromise in this case. I would support "Regency of Algiers victory' as proposed, but I would still prefer my original proposal. Lenovya (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I think "Algerian Victory" is more than enough too and I don't see the benefit into modifying "Algerian Victory" in "Regency of Algiers Victory" as the Regency of Algiers' people were called "algerians", I also think that the French wiki is not an example to follow regarding the articles related to Algeria. Descartes16 (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)